There have always been limits to who can get married that show this. For example, here in the United States we ban marriage between first cousins, we ban marriage between brothers, we ban polyamory (not ideal for the rearing of children)and we ban gay marriage, again, because they are not ordered towards children.

First of all, you’ve said that you’re willing to accept civil unions for gay couples, but not marriage. So far as I know, civil unions are in every way identical to marriage except they’re not called “marriage.” I can live with that.

Then again, I’m a heterosexual, so it’s easy for me to pose acceptable compromises on this issue.

You, and other gay-marriage opponents, say that you’re defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and rearing children.

I say there is absolutely no evidence that is, in fact, the reason for marriage. If that was the reason for marriage, it would be written into law, historically speaking. But the reality is quite the contrary: Historically speaking, any man and any woman can get married. And there is no major religion in the world–or legal jurisdiction in American or Europe–that I’m aware of that even mentions children in the marriage vows.

If marriage were for the purpose of having and rearing children, there would be some kind of fertility test associated with marriage. And that’s simply not the case, not in any culture I’m aware of. At the very least, there’d be some kind of age limitation.

The more likely explanation: Gay marriage opponents don’t like gay marriage, and came up with a logical-sounding explanation to justify their prejudice after the fact.

Moreover:

- People who define marriage as being for the raising and rearing of children claim that it’s the gays who are threatening marriage. In fact, it is the gay marriage opponents who are threatening marriage, by narrowing its definition. Many married couples choose not to have children, or are biologically incapable of it–these people can, and should, be concerned that they’ll be the next targets for the gay-marriage ban.

- Your definition of marriage actually includes polyamory. After all, polyamorous groups can have and rear children.

Whereas, the real reason to not give legal sanction to polyamory is that in every culture it’s been tried, it has worked out badly, mainly for the women.

Gays have had a few decades now to demonstrate that gay marriage is beneficial. If the advocates of polyamory want to convince us of the same, they need to wait about 30-50 years to build up a track record of healthy relationships.

Note that I’m not saying polyamory should be outlawed. What people want to do with their private lives is their business. And if they want to create contractual relationships regarding property that look like marriage, well, that’s their business too.

This is not a slippery slope. If you define marriage as simply a union between adults who care for each other, devoid of its connection to raising children and procreation, than you have, in effect, opened the door to all other unions in the same circumstances. Are you telling me that you don’t believe polyamory unions can love each other as equally as gay unions can? Are you saying that they don’t deserve ‘the same rights under the law’? In other words, you can’t deny polyamory unions what you grant gay unions, unless of course given your definition of marriage you have some fundamental reason why one should be accepted and not the other. But to arbitrarily exclude one seems unjust.

Opponents of gay marriage don’t have this problem. We define marriage with its connection to child rearing and procreation, hence no polyamory and at the same time, no gay marriage. I don’t see how you can accept one and not the other. You either reject both or accept both, but to pick and choose is not a choice.

Interracial marriages is not a valid comparison, whether two people of the same race or of different races marry does not in any way change the definition of marriage, it is still tied to its child rearing and procreative nature. On the other hand, advocating gay marriage does fundamentally change the definition of marriage; it is now defined outside of child rearing and procreation, meaning that polyamory unions have a claim just as much as gay unions do.

If you enjoyed that one, you will love this one:

“WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?”

Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the “esprit de divination”). What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

The answers, found here, were much more interesting. Also, there is the question of ‘what comes next’, which had some interesting answers.

Good luck on your new years resolution and I hope you have a very happy new year tambien. Don’t be such a stranger, stop by when you have time, you are always welcome here.

So nice to see you taking a break from haterism-fomenting posts. Enjoyed the link immensely. My dangerous idea in the form of a new year’s resolution: I’m going to stop hating on haters so much and just relax. This is dangerous to no one but myself, really, as I will have much more idle time this year.
Happy New Year, bro.

First of all, the polyamory movement is at least 10 years old, much older than the gay marriage movement.

Secondly, I am very, very suspicious of any argument that goes: If we grant rights to Group A, then Evi Group B will soon demand them.

Consider: Gay rights activists often cite interracial marriage as a precedent. It was once illegal and condemned, considered morally wrong by decent people, and now it’s almost commonplace.

So, therefore, since gay marriage is wrong, we should also ban interracial marriage, since that creates a precedent.

Of course, that’s just a silly argument.

Polyamory and gay marriage are separate issues, and need to be argued on their own merits.

Would approving gay marriage put us on a slippery slope? You bet it does. But, as Judge Robert Bork once said, slippery slopes are nothing to be afraid of, indeed, they are the very business the law is in.